[LEFT]After a federal judge struck down a Utah constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage, legislators are about to consider asking Utahns to vote on another amendment — this one seeking to ensure that churches cannot be forced to participate in marriages that violate their religious views.

“The truth is, the main reason I’m proposing this is that I just want people to relax” and to cool heated rhetoric after the same-sex ban was overturned, says Rep. Jacob Anderegg, R-Lehi, the amendment’s sponsor. “If they know they have their federal religious guarantees in writing, I hope they will just relax.” [/LEFT]

[LEFT]After a federal judge struck down a Utah constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage, legislators are about to consider asking Utahns to vote on another amendment — this one seeking to ensure that churches cannot be forced to participate in marriages that violate their religious views.

“The truth is, the main reason I’m proposing this is that I just want people to relax” and to cool heated rhetoric after the same-sex ban was overturned, says Rep. Jacob Anderegg, R-Lehi, the amendment’s sponsor. “If they know they have their federal religious guarantees in writing, I hope they will just relax.” [/LEFT]

[LEFT]After a federal judge struck down a Utah constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage, legislators are about to consider asking Utahns to vote on another amendment — this one seeking to ensure that churches cannot be forced to participate in marriages that violate their religious views.

“The truth is, the main reason I’m proposing this is that I just want people to relax” and to cool heated rhetoric after the same-sex ban was overturned, says Rep. Jacob Anderegg, R-Lehi, the amendment’s sponsor. “If they know they have their federal religious guarantees in writing, I hope they will just relax.” [/LEFT]

I don’t live in Utah but that law wouldn’t make me “relax” at all. In fact, it would make me nervous that the person proposing it thinks that the government** could **force churches to perform these “marriages” without such legislation.

That’s good, because it’s not about what’s legal and what’s not, but what God want’s and
doesn’t want. SO WHAT if gay marriage is legal? That isn’t the issue. Let it be legal and
continue affirming that it is nevertheless against God’s design, and he still wants ALL to
come to him, but under his terms.

[LEFT]After a federal judge struck down a Utah constitutional amendment that banned same-sex marriage, legislators are about to consider asking Utahns to vote on another amendment — this one seeking to ensure that churches cannot be forced to participate in marriages that violate their religious views.

“The truth is, the main reason I’m proposing this is that I just want people to relax” and to cool heated rhetoric after the same-sex ban was overturned, says Rep. Jacob Anderegg, R-Lehi, the amendment’s sponsor. “If they know they have their federal religious guarantees in writing, I hope they will just relax.” [/LEFT]

This seems pretty redundant since the first amendment already provides such a guarantee. But hey, if this is what they need to drop their appeal of Judge Shelby’s ruling, so be it. But I’m willing to bet that they won’t drop the appeal. I also really doubt that they’ll win the appeal, so… like I said… kind of a redundant amendment. Not to mention the $2 million of taxpayer money that they are wasting on outsourcing the legal defense for their appeal… which again, they’re not likely to win.

And I fully expect this amendment to get 90%+ of the vote, including the vast majority of gay and lesbian votes as well.

I would definitely vote in favor of this…if it wasn’t a protection that churches already have. As it stands, I would vote no, because enshrining nothing more than a symbolic backlash into a state constitution strikes me as asinine.

Manuel Zamorano paid the $42 fee to get permission from Sacramento County to perform a wedding for a relative. To Zamorano’s surprise, a counter clerk told him that he could not mention God during the ceremony. The instruction packet he received confirmed this restriction, stating, “You may use any ceremony of your choice as long as the ceremony does not have any religious connotations.”

I would definitely vote in favor of this…if it wasn’t a protection that churches already have. As it stands, I would vote no, because enshrining nothing more than a symbolic backlash into a state constitution strikes me as asinine.

:hmmm: I guess if they wanted to be vindictive they could just make polygamy legal.

Because a religious institution gets special treatment under the first amendment that is more limited for public accommodations. A religious institution can discriminate based on almost any quality (gender, religion, financial status). This is not the case outside of the increased religious protections afforded to religious institutions. In a public accommodation one cannot deny someone a job because they are female, they cannot refuse to serve people because of their religion… and in some localities, they cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

Oh, and lifesitenews… is a questionable source at best. I didn’t read the article, so I can’t comment specifically on that one, but in general, their relationship with the truth seems to be casual at best.

Because a religious institution gets special treatment under the first amendment that is more limited for public accommodations. A religious institution can discriminate based on almost any quality (gender, religion, financial status). This is not the case outside of the increased religious protections afforded to religious institutions. In a public accommodation one cannot deny someone a job because they are female, they cannot refuse to serve people because of their religion… and in some localities, they cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.
[/quote]

If the First Amendment protects religious expression it does so for all people seven days a week 365 days a year, not just pastors and priests and those sitting in Church on Sunday.
Those same people who object to SSM on religious grounds cant be denied the right to their conscientious objection outside, away from the church.
And yes, the First amendment does cover various forms of expression, not just speech. So if I can burn a flag, I can refuse to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding ceremony.

SeannyM:

Oh, and lifesitenews… is a questionable source at best. I didn’t read the article, so I can’t comment specifically on that one, but in general, their relationship with the truth seems to be casual at best.

If you think something is untrue, the intellectual respose would normally be to substantiate your opposite position with counter-evidence rather than just gainsaying or handwaving.
Do you think they were making the story up? :eek:
It’s about a New Jersey judge Solomon A. Metzger. The ACLU corroborated the “claims” made by lifesitenews.

That’s good, because it’s not about what’s legal and what’s not, but what God want’s and
doesn’t want. SO WHAT if gay marriage is legal? That isn’t the issue. Let it be legal and
continue affirming that it is nevertheless against God’s design, and he still wants ALL to
come to him, but under his terms.

What are we bickering about then? In the ultimate real sense, yes, there is no
such thing as homosexual marriage in God’s sight; HOWEVER, there is such
a thing as a secular-based ritual in which to homosexuals who love each other
commit one to another.

No use saying “It isn’t REAL!” because it’s here. Now what are we going to do about it?

What are we bickering about then? In the ultimate real sense, yes, there is no
such thing as homosexual marriage in God’s sight; HOWEVER, there is such
a thing as a secular-based ritual in which to homosexuals who love each other
commit one to another.

No use saying “It isn’t REAL!” because it’s here. Now what are we going to do about it?